Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Development and Proposed Variants

The Marines planned to include a .50-caliber chin turret. Weight and cost did it in.
 
yasotay said:
Wow! That has to be one of the most stable platforms I have seen.
Click to expand...

True, and the fact that the rocket launchers are out of the prop-wash should increase accuracy a lot. It is probably enough to up the effective range by 20% or more (just guessing on my part).

If the Osprey can fire in forward flight, the higher airspeed will also up accuracy for aerodynamically stabilised rockets. Of course, that is true of any fixed wing platform, so the impressive bit is the firing from near-hover - unless we're deceived by the fact that the camera is stabilised and wide-angle... :) Ah, technological change...
 
Proof of Concept aircraft had weapons on only one side because it was easier to do as a "one-off" demonstration design. With care so that the RH (facing forward) weapons cleared the door, or with necerssary operating restrictions, armament could be mounted on both sides. Test aircraft was the ATTR (N204TR) and is still flying with the Proof of Concept EIBF installation on the LH nacelle, showing it'scontinuing suitablity as Bell designs a production retrofit installation kit for it.
 
Here another artist's concept of the Bell - Boeing SV-22 "Anti-submarine warfare" version.
Due to the low quality of the original photocopy, I can't identify a nose random different to a standard V-22 Osprey. :-\

Source: J.Jones - Stealth Technology: The Art Of Black Magic, page 11, Aero Publishers 1989, ISBN: 0830682813
 

Attachments

  • SV-22_artists_concept_Stealth_Technology_Aero Publishers_1989_page113_810x676.png
    SV-22_artists_concept_Stealth_Technology_Aero Publishers_1989_page113_810x676.png
    270.4 KB · Views: 1,289
A short while ago, I picked up an Esci 1/72 PV-22A kit which looks just like that, has an open bay for the dipping sonar and those odd looking torpedoes and the optical sight
 
A new video from DARPA showing the missile-armed MV-22 participating in DARPA’s Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) program.
DARPA Close Air Support Success
Close air support (CAS)—delivery of airborne munitions to support ground forces—is difficult and dangerous because it requires intricate coordination between combat aircrews and dismounted ground agents. DARPA’s Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) program focuses on technologies to enable sharing.
Click to expand...
View: https://youtu.be/BMj-_hQCDmU
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SpudmanWP said:
I hat to bring it up... but it missed ;)
Click to expand...
Missed a direct hit on one vehicle. Blast/schrapnel effects to disable both vehicles not so sure.
 
More on the PCAS V-22 story:

https://www.defencetalk.com/darpa-demos-persistent-close-air-support-system-63872/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
http://defensetech.org/2015/04/17/marines-fire-switchblade-drone-from-osprey-in-test/
 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2015/04/22/welsh-osprey-combat-search-and-rescue/26176253/
 
"Paris Air Show 2015: Bell proposes JMR-TD/FVL technology for future V-22 upgrade"
Gareth Jennings, Paris - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
17 June 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/52369/paris-air-show-2015-bell-proposes-jmr-td-fvl-technology-for-future-v-22-upgrade

Bell Helicopter sees the prospect of the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor that it has jointly developed with Boeing being fitted with technology developed for its V-280 Valor Joint MultiRole-Technology Demonstrator/Future Vertical-Lift (JMR-TD/FVL) platform in a future mid-life upgrade (MLU), company CEO John Garrison said at the Paris Air Show.

Speaking at Le Bourget on 17 June, Garrison said the V-22 should be due an MLU in about the 2020 to 2025 timeframe, and that systems and components now under development for the V-280 tiltrotor could well see their way into such an effort.

"The V-22 will be over 30 years old by that time, and so an MLU will probably be needed. Bell is currently working with Boeing [on options for upgrading the V-22], but it is still very much in its early mapping stages," he said.

Garrison did not disclose what form a V-22 MLU might take, or indeed what V-280 technology might be incorporated.

JMR-TD is an effort currently being run by the US Army to inform its future helicopter requirements and capabilities. As well as Bell and its Valor, the army has also contracted a joint Sikorsky-Boeing team to develop its SB>1 Defiant compound co-axial helicopter under the programme (and has allocated funding to AVX and Karem to continue their research in the field). Both teams will build prototype demonstrators with the goal of flying them towards the end of 2017. Based on this 'fly-off', the army will downselect to one to go and develop the FVL family of rotorcraft.

The Valor and Defiant are being proposed for the FVL (Medium) requirement, which will see the army's current UH-60 Black Hawk and AH-64 helicopters replaced in the 2030 timeframe (though not necessarily by one platform). A follow-on FVL (Heavy) programme will look to replace the Chinook helicopter from about 2040 (although that particular platform has actually been earmarked to remain in service through to 2060).

While the army has said that FVL (Medium) might be satisfied by both a utility and an attack platform, Garrison noted that, in his opinion, the two transport and attack requirements can be fulfilled by the V-280 alone.
Click to expand...
 
Triton,

The obvious take-away from the V280 for the V-22 would be the revised nacelle and transmission design for the tilt-rotor, tilting only what needs be rotated and not the whole nacelle; this would eliminate a number of problems. Meanwhile, incremental improvements are being developed for the present nacelle to address known problem areas.
 
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19870629/38/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    218.5 KB · Views: 1,391
elmayerle said:
Triton,
The obvious take-away from the V280 for the V-22 would be the revised nacelle and transmission design for the tilt-rotor, tilting only what needs be rotated and not the whole nacelle; this would eliminate a number of problems. Meanwhile, incremental improvements are being developed for the present nacelle to address known problem areas.
Click to expand...

The choice of a tilting engine for the XV-15 was not arbitrary. After lengthy and indepth consideration of the pros and cons, tilting engines were selected for 1) the more efficient and simpler transmission of power from the engine to the rotor (for one thing, putting bevel gears in the primary drive train reduces transmission efficiency) and 2) the benefit of any residual engine thrust for vertical lift. The presence of the engine in the nacelle also helped balance it with respect to tilt-actuator loads. Vertical starting and stopping of the engine was a relatively straightforward design problem and that proved to be the case (it helped that it had already been done for the T53 for the Canadair CL-84 program).

In creating its proposal for the NASA TiltRotor Research Program, Boeing selected fixed engines as well as the opposite direction of rotor rotation after equally careful consideration of the pros and cons. And possibly the desire to differentiate its proposal as much as possible from Bell's.

It should be noted that NASA's decision to select Bell was probably based more on Bell's head start on transmission development (both Bell and Boeing had designed and wind tunnel tested full scale proprotors) and lower price than engine location and direction of rotor rotation. However, I'm also not aware of any XV-15 engine-installation problems.
 

Attachments

  • Boeing TRRA Low res.jpg
    Boeing TRRA Low res.jpg
    731.8 KB · Views: 1,200
The JVX;

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19850114/59/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    155.9 KB · Views: 954
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1678180-marines-to-arm-osprey-with-rockets-guns
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1678180-marines-to-arm-osprey-with-rockets-guns
Click to expand...

Hi,

with the same concept,it will fall again,I offered a development to V-22 at Boeing company
from few years,but they refused.
 
hesham said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1678180-marines-to-arm-osprey-with-rockets-guns
Click to expand...

Hi,

with the same concept,it will fall again,I offered a development to V-22 at Boeing company
from few years,but they refused.
Click to expand...

As they said to me,we want to look forward and we didn't developed old designs.
 
AVX proposes MV-22E dedicated marine escort attack

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/avx-pitches-attack-mv-22e-marine-escort-role

mv-22e-credit-avx_zpstd7hmfxb.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 2.png
    2.png
    113.2 KB · Views: 435
  • 10.png
    10.png
    115.5 KB · Views: 274
  • 9.png
    9.png
    76.6 KB · Views: 276
  • 8.png
    8.png
    94.4 KB · Views: 270
  • 7.png
    7.png
    45.2 KB · Views: 266
  • 6.png
    6.png
    80.2 KB · Views: 291
  • 5.png
    5.png
    152.7 KB · Views: 314
  • 4.png
    4.png
    176.6 KB · Views: 325
  • 3.png
    3.png
    122.8 KB · Views: 367
AeroFranz said:
yeah, so the rest of the aircraft can remain below the treeline and yadda yadda.
What I don't understand is that (I'm guessing here) you'd want the assembly to be rigid, otherwise the sensor is moving relative to the vehicle frame and you can't tell the weapons in which direction the sensor is looking. That spindly, telescopic mast sure looks like it could flex in anything but a hover. I don't know where else they could put the thing, but the shown installation is not very credible IMHO.
Click to expand...
—————————————————————————
How about installing the telescoping sight mast in a vertical stabilizer fin ......... back at the tail?
 
CV-22 wing pivot mechanism?

Back during preliminary design, Bell & Boeing engineers flip-flopped several times on whether to install a ‘rotisary’ or ‘carrousel’ wing pivot mechanism to stow Marine CV-22 below decks.

Does anyone have sketches or photos of the two competing pivoting methods?
THX
 
From Airpower Journal 1988.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    503.9 KB · Views: 405
G'day all

Just stumbled across and listen to this podcast with Rick Whittle, the author of The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey,

https://soundcloud.com/acquisition-talk%2Frichard-whittle-on-the-v-22-program-development

Very interesting!
Sound like a book worth getting!!


"The Osprey was supposed to do ten mission for all four armed services. For the Marines, it was supposed to do amphibious assaults and other transport missions that the CH-46 flew and the CH-53D flew, for the Air Force it was supposed to do special operations and combat search and rescue, for the Army — which didn’t end up buying any V-22s — they wanted the V-22 to do troop transport and medical evacuation and this wild spying mission, whose requirements said the aircraft had to cruise at 30,000 feet — that’s well above where you need oxygen — but evade surface to air missiles by diving toward the Earth at a decent rate of 20,000 feet per minute or more — that’s about 230 miles per hour — and do a split “S” maneuver, then dispense chaff and flairs as it was coming down at tree top level. And this is an aircraft that’s supposed to have rotors that will move…

Also, it was supposed to carry guns and missiles, and have external hard points for fuel tanks and electronic countermeasures, and pressurized against nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons contamination. It was supposed to fly 2,100 nautical miles on one tank of gas…"

P.S. In the podcast, Richard Whittle mentions 'the importance of Bell getting Boeing involved in the Osprey program, as Bell saw Boeing as having a competitive design, which might become a threat/competitor to the V-22 .... Whittle does mention the Boeing design (it might be mentioned in the book?), but I'm wondering if he's referring to the Boeing 360 compisit twin rotor design???

Here's a transcript from that podcast:
acquisitiontalk.com

Richard Whittle on the V-22 development history | Acquisition Talk

Perspectives on government innovation and the management of weapon systems procurement
acquisitiontalk.com acquisitiontalk.com

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
MV-22's Retractable Belly Gun: 360°, Remote Controlled, HELLISH Firepower From The Sky
Various footages of the U.S. Marines' Defensive Weapon System (DWS) test fire.
The system can be quickly installed underneath the MV-22 Osprey aircraft. The remote controlled gun turret setup uses a six-barrel 7.62mm GAU-17 Minigun that is capable of shooting 3,000 rounds per minute in a 1 meter by 1 meter box from a distance of 1,200 meters. A gunner uses a color monitor and a video game like controller like interface to operate the turret from the cockpit.
Click to expand...
Video:
Source:
Code: 
https://youtu.be/KYJML71QQbo
Please let me know, if this video from 2017 has been posted before.
 
Pioneer said:
G'day all

Just stumbled across and listen to this podcast with Rick Whittle, the author of The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey,

https://soundcloud.com/acquisition-talk%2Frichard-whittle-on-the-v-22-program-development

Very interesting!
Sound like a book worth getting!!


"The Osprey was supposed to do ten mission for all four armed services. For the Marines, it was supposed to do amphibious assaults and other transport missions that the CH-46 flew and the CH-53D flew, for the Air Force it was supposed to do special operations and combat search and rescue, for the Army — which didn’t end up buying any V-22s — they wanted the V-22 to do troop transport and medical evacuation and this wild spying mission, whose requirements said the aircraft had to cruise at 30,000 feet — that’s well above where you need oxygen — but evade surface to air missiles by diving toward the Earth at a decent rate of 20,000 feet per minute or more — that’s about 230 miles per hour — and do a split “S” maneuver, then dispense chaff and flairs as it was coming down at tree top level. And this is an aircraft that’s supposed to have rotors that will move…

Also, it was supposed to carry guns and missiles, and have external hard points for fuel tanks and electronic countermeasures, and pressurized against nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons contamination. It was supposed to fly 2,100 nautical miles on one tank of gas…"

P.S. In the podcast, Richard Whittle mentions 'the importance of Bell getting Boeing involved in the Osprey program, as Bell saw Boeing as having a competitive design, which might become a threat/competitor to the V-22 .... Whittle does mention the Boeing design (it might be mentioned in the book?), but I'm wondering if he's referring to the Boeing 360 compisit twin rotor design???

Here's a transcript from that podcast:
acquisitiontalk.com

Richard Whittle on the V-22 development history | Acquisition Talk

Perspectives on government innovation and the management of weapon systems procurement
acquisitiontalk.com acquisitiontalk.com

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...

The various mission scenarios described were part of the original JXV program initiated by the Army. Bell teamed with Boeing (for the JVX proposal?) long before the Bell-Boeing team was selected for the V-22 program to eliminate a competitor that arguably could propose a tiltrotor design as they had for what became the XV-15 program. I advocated for teaming with Grumman at the time instead but was overruled by Bell's president.
 
The V-22 fleet of tiltrotor aircraft has topped the 500,000 flight hour milestone:
boeing.mediaroom.com

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey Fleet Surpasses 500,000 Flight Hours

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 7, 2019 — The V-22 fleet of tiltrotor aircraft built by Bell Textron Inc., a Textron Inc. [NYSE: TXT] company, and Boeing [NYSE: BA] has topped the 500,000 flight hour milestone. More than 375 Ospreys logged the hours, including the U.S. Air Force CV-22 and the U.S. Marine...
boeing.mediaroom.com boeing.mediaroom.com
 
"The Osprey was supposed to do ten mission for all four armed services. For the Marines, it was supposed to do amphibious assaults and other transport missions that the CH-46 flew and the CH-53D flew, for the Air Force it was supposed to do special operations and combat search and rescue, for the Army — which didn’t end up buying any V-22s — they wanted the V-22 to do troop transport and medical evacuation and this wild spying mission, whose requirements said the aircraft had to cruise at 30,000 feet — that’s well above where you need oxygen — but evade surface to air missiles by diving toward the Earth at a decent rate of 20,000 feet per minute or more — that’s about 230 miles per hour — and do a split “S” maneuver, then dispense chaff and flairs as it was coming down at tree top level. And this is an aircraft that’s supposed to have rotors that will move…
Click to expand...

That last requirement, to me, seems like a poison pill meant to kill the program if they tried meeting it. It's like the Army didn't want it from the beginning. I also have to say, I hope those requirements were just all of the services spit-balling on what they wanted. Anyone who knows anything about aircraft design knows meeting all of those requirements in one vehicle is a joke. It's as if the V-22 succeeded in spite of what the services were asking it to do. It also seems it's a lesson Bell learned quite well, based on their V-280 design.
 
Army really wanted a Reconnaissance Attack HELICOPTER to operate on the western European plains. It elected to jettison the JVX for financial reasons. The fact that the lead contender was a new-fangled tilt rotor just made it easier.
Now that all of the Vietnam aviators have faded into retirement, and the MV/CV-22 has demonstrated operational viability, there is a fair chance for thelikes of V-280. The fact that is flying and the competition is not really off the ground yet makes a compelling arguement too.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom